[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FEC6D44.8080807@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:12 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: cyclonusj@...il.com, marmarek@...isiblethingslab.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, x86@...nel.org,
Jason Garrett-Glaser <jason@...4.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 fixes for 3.3 impacting distros (v1).
On 06/28/2012 07:28 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> Peter mentioned to me had some ideas about software PAT table lookup. I am not
> exactly sure what he meant by that.
>
I could see the kernel have programmable PAT values rather than fixed if
and only if it can be showed to have no measurable performance impact.
> Just to summarize, there were two ways proposed to fix this:
>
> 1). Make __page_change_attr_set_clr use a new wrapper: pte_attr, that calls
> pte_val (pvops call) instead of pte_flag (native). Here is the patch:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=4f93aa02acd0e34806d4ac9c3a700bb5d040eab6
> (no perf regressions across all platforms)
>
> 2). Introduce a new pvops call - pte_flags, which would make pte_flags
> (which currently is doing just a bit mask) be pvops-fied.
> http://darnok.org/results/baseline_pte_flags_pte_attrs/0001-x86-paravirt-xen-Introduce-pte_flags.patch
> http://darnok.org/results/baseline_pte_flags_pte_attrs/0002-x86-paravirt-xen-Optimize-pte_flags-by-marking-it-as.patch
> (weird results on AMD, other platforms had no perf degradations)
>
> 3). (not posted), was to do 2), but alter the alternative_asm and instead use asm_goto to
> make the compiler use less registers and hopefully reduce the code:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/devel/mmu-perf
> But the results I got showed worst performance on baremetal.. which was weird?
> Perhaps it is compiler related - never got to follow up on it.
>
OK, let me be blunt: I will unconditionally veto any of these.
>
> I also chatted with the core Xen hypervisor folks about adding in the context switch code
> to alter the PAT layout - but they were not keen a about it - and I am not sure how much
> CPU cycles one loses by doing a wrmsr to the PAT register on every guest context switch
> (worst case when on has a pvops kernel and a old-style one - where the WC bit would differ)?
>
And you're comparing that to a bunch of new pvops calls? The discussion
shouldn't even have started until you had ruled out this solution and
had data to show it.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists